Pritam Singh vs Rup Lal and others

R.N. Mittal, J. (Oral)

This revision petition has been filed by Pritam Singh and Balwant Singh defendants against the judgment of Additional District Judge, Faridkot, dated 23.1.1986.

Briefly, the facts are that Smt. Deepo, Rattno and Jeeto defendants Nos.1 to 3 were alleged to be owners of 1/6th share in land measuring 18 marlas in Moga Mehla Singh. It is further alleged that they sold the same to the plaintiff for an ostensible consideration of Rs 600/ by a registered sale deed dated 21.7.1975 and thus he became cosharer therein. They pleaded that there was a dispute between the parties and, therefore, they did not want to keep the land joint. Consequently, they filed a suit for possession by partition of 1/6th share therein.

The suit was resisted by the defendants who pleaded that defendants 1 to 3 had no share in the land and, therefore, no valid title passed to the plaintiff through the registered sale deed dated 21.7.1975. They also pleaded that the suit was not maintainable in that form, that the plaintiff had no locus standi to file the suit and that the suit was not within limitation.

The trial Court held that the plaintiff had no title in the property as the defendants Nos. 1 to 3 had no saleable interest therein and that the suit was not within limitation. Consequently, it dismissed the suit. The plaintiff went up in appeal before the Additional District Judge, Faridkot. The plaintiff made a statement there that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction and consequently the suit as well as the appeal be dismissed as withdrawn. The lower appellate Court dismissed the suit as withdrawn with the observation that the plaintiff shall have a right to file a petition for partition of the land. The defendantpetitioners have come up in revision to this Court.

Mr. Puri has strenuously argued that the Civil Court had the jurisdiction to decide the matter as the property was situated within the municipal area and was not used for agricultural purposes. He further contends that no objection regarding jurisdiction was taken by the defendants in the trial Court. Consequently, they could not raise the objection for the first time in appeal.

I have given due consideration to the argument and find substance therein. It is not disputed that the property is situated within the town of Moga. It is common knowledge that the town are extending and the lands are being purchased for residential purposes. In the present case, the land is shown as ghairmumkin in the jamabandi for the year 196970 Exhibit P.3. It is thus clear that the land was not being used for agricultural purposes. In the circumstances, it could not be said that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit and the plaintiff could file an application for partition before the Revenue Officer.

For the aforesaid reasons, I accept the revision petition, set aside the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge and direct him to decide the matter afresh on merits after hearing the parties.

I have been informed that the plaintiff has filed an application for partition. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the application for partition cannot continue. Mr. Khunger has stated that his clients will withdraw that application. The parties are directed to appear before Mr.A.S. Sodhi, Additional District Judge, Faridkot, on 6.10.1986. No order as to costs.